I don't get why they want to do this with drones... It seems like a less efficient and more expensive method of tracking compared to the satellites they are using now...

My guess would be to have more control of what they can see. Satellites look down, whereas UAV's can reposition themselves rather swiftly and look from numerous angles. The other reason would be more of a psychological one, the bad guys will some times get to see these things and perhaps will think twice, and the fearful citizen might feel like they are now more secure since the watching eye in the sky will somehow be able to protect them better.

There is a way to trap drivers into speeding. Target locations where there is a high probability of drivers missing the change of speed sign ie two lane road and only one sign on one side of the road, driver passing another vehicle which obscures visibility of the sign or change of speed on a downhill stretch which requires active deceleration to comply.

What this is all about is of course, computers will do my job for me, I will still take the credit and get paid for doing nothing (if it really worked, o

There is a way to trap drivers into speeding. Target locations where there is a high probability of drivers missing the change of speed sign ie two lane road and only one sign on one side of the road, driver passing another vehicle which obscures visibility of the sign or change of speed on a downhill stretch which requires active deceleration to comply.

True but you do not need a drone to do that? It happens all the time in small towns. It is almost a joke in some places.

What this is all about is of course, computers will do my job for me, I will still take the credit and get paid for doing nothing (if it really worked, of course they would fire them and just use computers). Automated speed cameras do not assist police officers they replace police officers.

Drones require pilots and observers to operate. All they are is moving the people out of the aircraft and reducing costs. Remember, I am talking about the drones not the cameras. Even cameras require people to do the paperwork, go to court, handle complaints, etc.

Sure. However, I've been driving in Oz for 35yrs, for as long as I can remember there have been "airborne speed traps", these are clearly signposted and have a line several feet thick painted across the road where they start and end (usually 1-5km apart). They're only on country roads, and are so obvious that any driver who misses one really shouldn't be behind the wheel. OTOH, I've never known anybody to get a ticket from a "flying pig", which is probably why lot of people simply ignore them.

That is a big component of this. How much you want to bet a private company is already lined up to run the whole operation, for a large percentage of the revenue? Not just privatizing of law enforcement, but blurring the line between criminal and civil offenses and government giving sanction to private companies to do things only governments should be doing.

You can make the argument not to speed, but cops lower speed limits on major roads deliberately to make people speed based on their common sense rather than sense of law.

Police have no say in what speed limits are; that just enforce the laws. It is the local administration that sets those limits. I am not saying that there are a lot of speed traps in small towns everywhere but I doubt very much that these towns can afford a drone.

In Canada we have speed warning signs. Basically it is a sign with a speed limit and an arrow that means that the speed limit will change to the new value ahead. This give time to slow down. In BC [gov.bc.ca] (check page 2.10) when going from 100Kmh to 50Kmh r

If you mean GPS satellites the vehicle has to have a GPS device that is transmitting it's ID, location and speed. Very few vehicles do that.

If you mean image satellites then you are way off. Satellites do not have the angle or resolution to read a license number so can not identify a single vehicle. They generally take still photographs so it is very difficult to spot vehicles going faster than the general flow of traffic. There are very few satellites available that can handle video. Those that can are gen

Aside from GPS satellites, there are no satellites capable of tracking vehicles and determining speed. Maybe you've watch Enemy of the State one too many times. That's not even how the military tracks vehicles in Afghanistan. They use drones, like the Predator.

No. No, they can't. And by corollary, they don't. They fly very fast, so they can take a picture of any given area, but only when it's on its path. If you want lots of pictures, you need lots of satellites. Moving satellites in orbit is expensive and not done terribly often. Drones are far far far cheaper than satellites, particularly for police. Also, there are no video cameras on satellites, only still pictures. So no, satellites can't track vehicles.

Actually, if they ever enforce speeding with 100% accuracy, perhaps we'll see an end to the ridiculous speed limits on roads. The current system is accepted only because everybody is allowed to violate it with near impunity.

The accident stats are in VicRoads annual report where the accident rate per km driven is very interesting as it climbs every year. There is that lovely report on the Auditor General's report which cites a report from the Cochrane Library that has all the details about speed limit compliance and links to other sources of that info.

Victoria's roads have not seen a decrease in accident rates in years unlike the rest of the world.

Yes. However Victoria was/is seen as a world leader in reducing it's road toll, and I've observed the change as a driver since 1977, the stats show their effectiveness but after the massive reductions in the 80-90's, most of what's left are non-preventabile accidents or Darwin awards. Once the first big gains were seen, other states followed, and then other countries flocked here to see how it was done, ie: other countries are now lagging but will catch up soon enough.

This is already being done except that the police use helicopters and light planes. Ever notice the big white stripes beside or across the road at regular intervals? They time how long it takes a vehicle to go between the marks and calculate the speed. I see no difference between using a drone and a helicopter. They both have pilots and watch for speeders. Just because a drone is higher tech does not make using it bad.

Precisely. I honestly cannot see this happening. I live in Canberra and I can tell you that there's no way in hell they're gonna spend the money on expensive crap like drones in this city.

Drones would only help in situations where the cameras located a vehicle, and you needed to follow it. It could thus be useful to follow getaway cars from a major crime, hit and run perpetrators etc.... but honestly the number of these situations in a given year in a city like Canberra with only ~400,000 people is not eno

We'd be lucky to have more than about 5 actual police chases a year here.

How do you get internet under that rock? 76 in the year ending in June last, 48 called off because of dangers to the public (12 in pursuit of the douchebag that crashed at Fyshwick earlier this year). Any more "facts" you want to pluck out of your arse".

Perhaps you got confused with the number of deaths by hit and run? Or was it did you mean - killed by a single, serial car thief in that crash at Narrabundah last year (four dead) when he refused to pull over (subsequently requiring the police to call off m

I wasn't claiming to state facts - I was expressing my guesses on what purposes drones could possibly be used for (since the article didn't really go into much depth). One that sprung to mind was to replace police on the ground in situations like car chases. From your response I take it you have access to the statistics, and knowledge of the reasons drones are being considered, and that indeed, they ARE being seen as a solution to that problem. Th

Your uninformed opinions offend me - and I've offended you? Try not to get distracted - I'm just a person and of no consquence to the issues. Which are:- why "guess" when you could research and at least make an "informed guess"? At the very least you could read the referenced article in the original story. It's not like you lack the abilities or education.

I honestly cannot see this happening. I live in Canberra and I can tell you that there's no way in hell they're gonna spend the money on expensive crap like drones in this city.

but honestly the number of these situations in a given year in a city like Canberra with only ~400,000 people is not enough to justify the expense. We'd be lucky to have more than about 5 actual police chases a year here.

Consider prefacing your posts with a warning eg. "I have no idea and I've done absolutely no research - but a thought popped into my head that supports m

>> "why "guess" when you could research and at least make an "informed guess"?"

Fair point. I suppose it depends on whether one considers an Internet forum which people casually browse and comment on articles the kind of place where you expect to always see properly researched and informed comments. If someone is just browsing for a few minutes in their lunch break and something pops into their head, they may comment. And often end up being wrong. Yes, it would have been better not to comment in the fi

I suppose it depends on whether one considers an Internet forum which people casually browse and comment on articles.

Firstly - for what it's worth, you have my respect. Secondly, particulary in respect to what I've quoted here, Slashdot wasn't always a "casual comment" forum - it was somewhere I went for informed and interesting insights into current events and subjects. The predominance of "me too" posts from people who can't quote and won't even fully read the original summary, bad jokes, ignorant repetition of narrow minded dogmatic "opinions", and commercial shills has meant many of the posters I know, no longer post

At $700 around here, they would need to issue a total of two tickets per hour to pay for it.

I'd be surprised if, from a helicopter, they can't spot more than two speeders every hour.

And, of course, that's just from the speeding ticket. In Beaverton, Oregon (as I recently found out:), if you don't pay the ticket on time it can go from $470 to $1130 total - all they have to do is catch the person driving with a six-month old "unpaid" ticket on their record.

Either method is bad. There's no justification for using these kinds of resources for a victimless "crime" (speeding on rural highways), and these methods aren't viable for catching speeders in urban areas; for that, you need to actually put a cop in a car on the street, where he can also spot other activities that are much worse than speeding, such as tailgaiting, reckless driving, drunk driving, etc.

Interesting idea on what a "victimless crime" is. Tell that to the innocent driver who is hit by the speeder. Tell that to the insurance companies who have to pay for the accidents caused by speeding. Tell that to the family of someone killed by a speeder. Speeders have a higher accident rate no matter where they are.

Drones can also see all the activities you mentioned over a much wider area than a police vehicle. That can then vector a police car to stop the offender.

Interesting idea on what a "victimless crime" is. Tell that to the innocent driver who is hit by the speeder.

Don't be an idiot. Someone "speeding" on an empty rural highway isn't a danger to anyone. A busy metro-area highway is a different matter.

Helicopters are used as chase vehicles.

How often do you need to chase someone in the middle of nowhere? The OP talked about painted stripes on the road to calculate speed; that can't be used on busy metro highways because there's too much traffic; it's a method

Don't be an idiot. Someone "speeding" on an empty rural highway isn't a danger to anyone. A busy metro-area highway is a different matter.

A rural highway is empty right up until there is something on the road. The person going too fast may not be able to see it in time to react and avoid it. To turn this a bit personal, my sister was killed on a rural highway by a speeder who didn't see her till it was too late.

Helicopters are used as chase vehicles.

How often do you need to chase someone in the middle of nowhere?

They do chase people on highways near cities though.

The OP talked about painted stripes on the road to calculate speed; that can't be used on busy metro highways because there's too much traffic; it's a method only useful in more rural areas.

Why can't marks on the road and shoulder be used to time vehicles in heavy traffic? It is easy to spot a vehicle driving above the limit from the air and time how long it takes to go

To turn this a bit personal, my sister was killed on a rural highway by a speeder who didn't see her till it was too late.

Maybe your rural highways are different from ours, but how do you "not see" another driver until it's too late on a 4-lane highway? It's not like there's any sharp turns or other visual obstructions, and surely the guy wasn't driving a Lamborghini at 180mph. Sounds like the other driver was impaired, not merely "speeding". And how do you tell what a "safe speed" is anyway? How can it

Not all rural highways are 4 lanes; many are 2 lanes. No sharp turns on rural highways? I used to live in the mountains where there were plenty of sharp turns. There are also hills which limit vision. I am talking highway not freeway.My sister was a pedestrian crossing the highway. She didn't see the car coming and the car didn't see her till it was too late. The vehicle was doing 80mph in a 55mph zone. Maybe if he had been doing the limit he could have avoided her or she may have been able to get out of th

No sharp turns on rural highways? I used to live in the mountains where there were plenty of sharp turns. There are also hills which limit vision.

I live in the western USA. Sharp turns are very rare, and only in mountains. Most places there's visibility for miles and the roads are straight as an arrow, and hills are rare and gradual (they usually cut through hills). So why not have a higher speed limit on the straight parts, and a lower speed limit in the mountains?

That goes to show how little you actually know about the "highway [wikipedia.org]" system. A Freeway is a limited access highway. The US has a network of highways called Interstates. They also have US and State highway networks that do not have the access restrictions as an Interstate. Here is a good example of a 2 lane windy hilly highway in the US; Highway 1 [wikipedia.org] in California. It is a rural highway with areas that are populated.

My sister was killed on a section of Highway 3, also called the Southern Trans-Canada Highway. So

I guess you also have no animals in your state. Run into a deer, elk,moose, bear, etc because you couldn't stop or avoid in time due to high speed is going to hurt a lot. There is a difference between slow, 55mph, and above your sight/reaction range and vehicle capability, 100mph. Most modern cars can cruise at that higher speed.

Yes, we have elk in Arizona. I've seen them on small roads near the Canyon, but not on interstates. If you hit an elk at 100mph, it's because you weren't paying attention. There'

Sorry but you just don't get the idea of what happens when you speed.1. Reaction times are decreased. That extra second or two may make the difference between being able to do something and it already being too late.2. Vehicles take longer to stop and are less manoeuvrable when at high speeds. Try to avoid an object on the road when doing 55 and then try the same manoeuvre at 100. I doubt you will have the same success; you may even crash.

You should come up here to Minnesota in the fall. You can be paying perfect attention to the road and still hit a giant stilted rat (white tail deer). During the rut I have had them charge my vehicle and hit it on the passenger side door, thankfully that was the junk hunting truck so I didn't care about the damage and just went and bought another junkyard mirror. They come right out of the ditch and will jump right in front of a vehicle, or sometime onto the hood. On a rural 2 lane highway with narrow or no

'Highway' doesn't necessarily mean a nice, 4-lane, divided, controlled-access road with no sharp turns. A highway, in Australia at least, is any trunk road between towns/cities designated as such. Plenty are crappy 2 lane roads with sharp turns, particularly in the mountainous areas in the east of the country. Hell, there are even designated state highways in Australia that are DIRT ROADS (e.g. parts of the Silver City Highway north of Broken Hill).

Don't be an idiot. Someone "speeding" on an empty rural highway isn't a danger to anyone.

Like the fuckwits that come through my fences once a month? It says 90 kph but you dickheads always blame something else and talk about how speed limits are just to raise revenue. When my stock get out on the road because you lost control doing 140 kmph on a 90 kmph rural road is it still not a danger to anyone. The world isn't your road - you aren't the only one that uses the roads - if you think you need to speed - go to a racetrack or buy and alarm clock and get out of bed earlier.

Like the fuckwits that come through my fences once a month? It says 90 kph but you dickheads always blame something else and talk about how speed limits are just to raise revenue.

This sounds like the street my mom lives on. People never drive the speed limit and always crash. A couple of weeks ago I was helping my mom pick some stuff up (the benefits of owning a truck) and we were unloading stuff and saw someone go blowing by. A couple of seconds later we heard a big crash. The idiot driver rear ended a parked car on a residential road. It wasn't a glancing blow either it was license plate to license plate

If you bothered to read more, you'd see I'm talking about rural interstate highways. Your animals are not wandering around on those, and there's no way in hell 65mph is the maximum safe speed on a road where there's no people around for 100 miles in either direction, and it sure as hell isn't possible to "lose control" when the road is straight as an arrow.

Oh course, you'd be one of those dicks that calls the cops when you drive past and see me with a rifle

"If you bothered to read more, you'd see I'm talking about rural interstate highways. Your animals are not wandering around on those, and there's no way in hell 65mph is the maximum safe speed on a road where there's no people around for 100 miles in either direction, and it sure as hell isn't possible to "lose control" when the road is straight as an arrow."

Okay I have to comment on all this.

First, I live in Wyoming. It's the lowest population state in the U.S. with a mere 500,000 people. It's also the 10t

Well duh! There's a bloody big ocean between here (where the article is referring to) and your story - geography is another one of your failings.

and there's no way in hell 65mph is the maximum safe speed on a road where there's no people around for 100 miles in either direction, and it sure as hell isn't possible to "lose control" when the road is straight as an arrow.

And yet more teenagers die in Arizona from car accidents than from any other cause - so even your strawman scenarios are bullshit. Nice emotional investment you've got their - how's them dividends?

Obviously you've never lived or traveled through someplace truly rural.

Apart from living in a country where the national average population density is 2.6 people/km2 and having been on cattle stations up to 24,000km2 (Anna Creek).... Apart

Reckless is subjective; it is much easier to enter evidence of speed, an objective measurement, in court. Why are they being reckless? Because that want to speed. A drone can be used to place both charges.Even at that, speed reduces reaction time and vehicle control. I am not for 55mph limits on roads designed for 70mph; that is just stupid and annoying. What I am against is idiots who want to do 100MPH just because they can afford a hot car and have no regard for other people on the highway..

I am truly amazed at just how much Big Brother that the (formerly, and once fiercely) independent Australians are willing to put up with. Virtually no private ownership of guns any more. Non-opt out Internet filtering. Now P2P traffic monitoring. How long before they regulate out of existence the Aussie equivalent of the pit bull - the legendary Australian Cattle Dog?

How long before they regulate out of existence the Aussie equivalent of the pit bull - the legendary Australian Cattle Dog?

Actually, the American Pit Bull is pretty much legislated out of existence. On the other hand, nobody's ever suggested legislation against cattle dogs as far as I'm aware - they don't have a breed temperament

I think you might have taken a few exaggerated and inaccurate Slashdot headlines without the requisite grain of salt:

- Your point about guns is true, but keep in mind the context you are talking about here. There was very, very little private ownership of guns in Australia from the start. Gun laws were indeed toughened up and a buy-back instituted during the late 90s but it wasn't a particularly controversial issue because we simply don't have the gun culture that countries like the US do. If you have a legitimate reason to own guns (sports shooter, farmer, security, etc etc.) and are appropriately licensed, you could, and still can, own a gun. But the rest of us don't care that we can't because 99.9% of us never did and have probably never thought about guns in our lives.

- What non-opt out internet filtering? Please stop spreading this myth. That proposal never even made it to the "introduced into Parliament as a Bill" stage, let alone actually got through the House and Senate and enacted into law. It was shot down in flames by the public and by most of the political parties. Two ISPs did implement a very basic filter blocking a handful of sites using a trivial-to-overcome method (they were not forced to do so - they did it of their own accord). But there are literally dozens of choices of ISPs in almost every area and if you don't like it, you are free to move to on of the other 95% of ISPs who don't filter.

- What P2P traffic monitoring? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about and I follow the Internet industry here pretty closely. Are you confusing something you've read about a ~particular~ ISP's policy, and applying that to the country as a whole?

- Aussie cattle dogs as common as mud here - the stereotypical farmer's or tradesman's dog. They don't generally have the same temperament as a pit bull so I'm not sure why they would be legislated against? Particularly as they are considered a national icon in many ways.

Look I understand where you're coming from, but please, please remember that Slashdot articles are often hyped up, inaccurate and filled with hyperbole. Doubly so for stories originating outside the US where readers might not be aware of the other relevant facts and overall context of the article. The net filtering thing is a good example - it was constantly reported on here as if it was a done deal and we were all going to be subject to mandatory filtering, whereas the reality on the ground is that it was politically untenable and most people could see it couldn't/wasn't going to happen. And it didn't. A proposal by a few senators does not equal an enacted law... but to this day half of Slashdot seems to think there is some kind of mandatory government-forced filtering here.

The Australian character has changed over the last few decades to be sure (although not so much once you move outside of the large cities). That is inevitable - we are still a young country that is still maturing in many ways. What has changed though is the degree to which every little idea, random thought and proposal is reported on (often in as inflammatory language as possible to get page views).

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be levelled against Australia without having to make things up. And on the flip side there are plenty of areas in which we can say we have resisted some of the big brother stuff seen in other countries - we have nowhere near the level of CCTV coverage as Europe does, we still have decent warrant requirements and safeguards regarding wiretapping, we have strong privacy and consumer protection laws, and we can still get on a plane without being nudie scanned, without taking our shoes off, without having to package up our liquids into sandwich bags etc etc. Every country has its vices and I don't think anywhere can truly say it's resisted Big Brother completely, unfortunately.

The most extreme security measures I've seen at an Australian airport security site was the explosive swab-down, which I've had twice. I'm willing to go through that Every time I fly if it means we avoid those silly scanners and invasive pat-downs. You stand there with your arms out, they run a wand over different parts of your body (it has a felt tip), they wait a few seconds for an analysis, and you're done! Incredibily minimally invasive.
The vast majority of Australian murders are crimes of passion, an

Yeah point-to-point speeding cameras may be new to the ACT but as you say I've seen them in Melbourne before, and there's been some on the Federal Highway in NSW (between Sydney and Canberra) for a while now. First genuinely effective way of ensuring people don't speed on a stretch of road that I've seen (let's face it, once you know where the traditional speed cameras are, you just slow down... go past... and speed back up again). They are a bit irritating bec

I've actually started to wonder if the solution to government monitoring is to just open source it.

Imagine tons of cameras posting GUIDs for faces and plate numbers with timestamps and locations all over the web, and uploading them to centralized databases that ANYBODY can see. Suddenly NOBODY has privacy. You could pull up a photo of every person who ever walked into CIA headquarters, or find the home address of every judge in the country. When somebody commits a crime the press and the victim's family

In general, it's ironic we will put all these computer resources into surveilling people who we fear are up to no good (like stealing property or escaping from society via drugs) instead of just building robots (and other infrastructure) to make what people want al

I think the transformation you suggest will eventually happen - eventually we'll have unemployment of 90% and there will be little choice. However, there are many things in the world that are still scarce, and everything is finite - even the number of electrons in the universe. The army of robots serving society only works if the size of society is limited by resources. Otherwise, if everybody can just sit around doing what they want, then they'll probably end up wanting to have a fair number of kids.

"Otherwise, if everybody can just sit around doing what they want, then they'll probably end up wanting to have a fair number of kids."

And with a seemingly empty and devoid-of-life solar system and galaxy around us, this is wrong because?

Simple - we're likely to have shortages of employment on Earth long before we are able to colonize other planets.

I'll agree that once interplanetary travel and terraforming are available then population will not be an issue for a LONG time. However, I think problems of population will become worse long before they become better.

But how different is that from their Northern Hemisphere cousins the Americans?

We States dwellers fought a damned revolution in the name of minimal, just government, liberty, and independence. Almost 250 years later we are habitually putting more power in the hands of the Federal government, mandating or outlawing just about everything (at least if you live in California), turning the other cheek when the NSA wiretaps our phone companies, and naming legislation that suspends Habeus Corpus the God damned

Internet filtering has effectively been killed, it's been delayed and delayed and delayed. No way it's going to be implemented in the current minority government environment.
As to outlawing Cattle Dogs, they're Not the equivalent of the pit bull, in shape, feature, purpose or Training.

There are very specific laws and regulations dealing with where you can and can't fly hobby remote control aircraft, and not just in Australia. A small lightweight aircraft can be deadly. Even a small weight moving quickly can be very dangerous. (Heck a small treebranch fell on me at the local zoo on a windy day about a week ago and the damn thing felt like I'd been clubbed unexpectedly with a baseball bat. Presumably it fell from a good height). Add a propeller and now you have a nice mix master missle com

I returned to Canberra 8 months ago after 6 years overseas, living in both Germany and the US (well, California!). Some things we are very glad to be back to and some leave me with a slack jaw. This is one of them. Here is the comment I --usually politically apathetic, like most Australians -- posted to the article linked to in the summary.

You won't get zero deaths on a road because it is a common yet underreported method for suicide.

A traffic group in South Australia published a paper that said you double the accident rate for every 5 km increase in speed and that became the basis for traffic safety programs in Victoria and NSW. That report didn't take into account traffic density but since they are in a sleepy town of Adelaide, maybe it was beyond their comprehension that as you slow down traffic, you increase its density in odd ways that

I returned to Canberra 8 months ago after 6 years overseas, living in both Germany and the US (well, California!). Some things we are very glad to be back to and some leave me with a slack jaw.

Maybe you're just slack-jawed full stop. The referenced article is badly written - but it's still nothing to do with using UAVs to give out speeding fines. It's because the police aren't allowed to pursue people speeding in traffic - and it's too expensive to put up helicopters after them. The actual incident that triggered the request for UAVs was the death in Fyshwick earlier this year - where a serial car thief who delighted in baiting police (because the courts kept letting him off) hit and killed some

Thanks for the back story since the article obviously didn't mention any of that. Using speed camera pictures in court seems like a perfectly reasonable idea but was never mentioned -- so that's extra information you bring to the table. Thanks for calling me a moron even though you didn't address a single point I raised. Again, Canberran roads are the safest in the world and measures that have been discussed, as mentioned in the article, are an over-reaction to a non-existent problem.

Thanks for the back story since the article obviously didn't mention any of that.

Because (shock horror) the story is complete bullshit.

Using speed camera pictures in court seems like a perfectly reasonable idea but was never mentioned

It's vaguely alluded to "A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the Bill before the Assembly only permitted the devices to be used for transport law enforcement, or for a purpose allowed under another law. "

Thanks for calling me a moron

Don't mention it

even though you didn't address a single point I raised.

Because they're not relevant to the actual story - which is what I said it is - not the "oh nose it's another revenue raising scam" beatup press release by the Opposition "a senior police officer said the cameras could

The actual incident that triggered the request for UAVs was the death in Fyshwick earlier this year - where a serial car thief who delighted in baiting police (because the courts kept letting him off) hit and killed some of his friends after calling them to help escape the police pursuit.

Really? Because the article is a report on minutes from a meeting held in June 2010.

The actual incident that triggered the request for UAVs was the death in Fyshwick earlier this year - where a serial car thief who delighted in baiting police (because the courts kept letting him off) hit and killed some of his friends after calling them to help escape the police pursuit.

Really? Because the article is a report on minutes from a meeting held in June 2010.

The referenced article is dated 22 Sep, 2011.

Where is this meeting minutes you refer to and what bearing does that have on your bullshit claim this story about seeking to change the law so that speed camera pictures can be used to prosecute people for criminal offences has something to do with your little rant about point to point cameras Mr Troll?

I knew this was coming, as I thought how easy it would be to do, 5 years ago when the drones were coming out for the police force and being used to track perps.I knew it would not be long before someone got the idea to use it to track speeders and then be able to send them a nice ticket in the mail for the infraction.The only problem is that how does the drone write up the report , it doesn't as the guy flying the drone does...the problem is that you need an actual person to hand over a ticket if points are

Yes, and we can thank a yank for the brilliant design of our nations capital.
- Pick an empty spot far away from population centres.
- Build the world's largest concentric round-about and put all the politicians in the middle of it.
- From high up, the round-about looks like a giant bulls eye, making it safe and easy to nuke from orbit.

How does one go from The capital of Australia wants to use drones for traffic to USA must be using drones because hackers can make drones and because the FBI is tracking cell phones without warrants? I don't see the connection!

FFS, just climb up the top of the parliament house flagpole and you can see the whole state

Dear retard - do you mean the "state" of Canberra or the "state" of ACT.

Either way - there's a bit more to it than Dickson, Civic, your flat over on Ainslie Avenue, Fyshwick, and maybe Manuka.

And the story in the Canberra Times is about how to safely pursue speeding criminal drivers.

The article misrepresents a police suggestion that they be able to use speed cameras to get additional evidence in situations where it's unsafe to pursue speeding drivers in a police car and if the pursuit is continued with a

Yes, drones are a double edge sword, as an Aussie these particular drones don't raise my eyebrow, there are way too many catastrophes involving kids in stolen cars trying to out run the cops. When you get to "get of my lawn" age you'll be able to rattle of at least a few people you know who were killed or maimed on the road, A personal example; My best mates 15yo son was found dead, 5m up a tree, 2 days after one such catastrophe that killed 6 teenagers, and to pre-empt all the armchair parents out there, n

No, I think you've confuse Lake Burley Griffin with the symbol erected to honour the only city in Australia where more smackies drive nice cars than catch buses. It's certainly the only city I know of where the public service toilets have needle collection bins (and they're not there for diabetics who tend to carry their own disposal kits).

In the US the marginal rate at that income would be 33% but SS and medicare (if you count both the employer and employee contributions) is 15% tacked on top. Then state income tax, add about another 8% depending on which state. And of course you'll need Health Insurance, probably another 10% there. Is 66% > 45%?

(And yes I conveniently ignored the Oz payroll taxes and the medicare levy, and for the US side that SS is capped).